1.      The importance of context.

In the 1950’s the United States government tried to develop systems for machine translation of Russian and other languages.  After years of effort, it concluded that the only reliable, and ultimately the fastest, translator is a human being deeply conversant not only with the language but with the subject as well.  The machines could manage words and grammar but completely distorted content because they could not perceive the context.

The level of context determines everything about the nature of the communication and is the foundation on which all subsequent behavior rests.  The term “contexting” has been part of the project/programme purpose communication vocabulary for many years and originated with anthropologist Edward T. Hall who developed and tested a triangle model of shared information ranging from low to high. 

Hall described context as “a way of handling information overload.”  In other words, an event is usually infinitely more complex and rich than the language used to describe it.  Context carries varying proportions of the meaning.  Without context, a message is incomplete since it encompasses only part of the message.  The code, the context and the meaning can only be seen as different aspects of communications.

As observed by the researcher Devereux, communicating across cultures is still more complicated because information cannot be obtained through – or inferred from – direct observation or sense data.  Information must necessarily pass from one mind to another.

Not all cultures, however, use context in the same way.  In order to anticipate the role of context in a culture, it is useful to turn to a scale developed by Borisoff and Victor.  This scale, based on Hall’s triangle model of shared information and on Rosch & Segler’s continuum of cultures, helps to distinguish high-and low-context cultures and supports the analysis and improvement of cross-cultural communication.

2.      Culture and communication.

The influence of culture on the way an individual communicates is easily recognizable when that individual speaks in a foreign language.  His grammar and vocabulary may be perfect, but he often has difficulty accurately and efficiently transmitting his intent because of the way his own culture affects the underlying communication process.  Not only could his body language and tone of voice confuse his foreign counterpart; but, the very way that ideas are constructed and formulated in his culture could obscure his message. 

Language, verbal and non-verbal, is the fundamental tool for delivering a message, but full meaning requires that the cultural context of the sender and the receiver of the message be taken into consideration. 

In order to do so, the communication process can be linked and evaluated according to four primary cultural patterns: Context, degree of directness, degree of expressiveness and degree of formality.

A culture's orientation to communication is often very subtle, yet subtle differences in communication preferences can cause significant problems in sales, negotiations, performance appraisals, teamwork and many other project/programme purpose processes that occur across cultural boundaries.

3.      High-context cultures: Situational and implicit.

The first pattern for evaluating a culture’s communication process is whether it is high -or low-context.  High-context communication occurs when most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person emitting the message.  Very little of this information is in the coded, explicit and transmitted part of the message.

Cultures that tend toward high-context communication generally assume that the meaning of a message is not only in the message itself but in all the variables around the content.  Situational and nonverbal cues convey primary meaning, and therefore the verbal message in communications is more implicit.  Information is less frequently communicated in a linear form.  High-context communicators tend to move directly to a conclusion through a series of logical steps. 

The primary purpose of communication in high-context cultures is to form and develop relationships rather than exchange facts and information.  In relationship forming, communication often becomes an art form rather than a utilitarian activity.  A great deal of contextual information is needed about an individual or a organization before project/programme purpose can be transacted.  In conducting project/programme purpose in a high-context culture, it is important to communicate not only personal and organization expertise, but also personal and organization contextual frames: education, work background, family, political and social connections, philosophical beliefs, affiliations and experience.  project/programme purpose is conducted through relationships in high-context cultures, and therefore trust is critical.  A significant amount of time may be spent on small talk. 

The communication of meaning is transmitted not just in words, but relies heavily on group understandings of voice tone, body language, facial expressions, eye contact, speech patterns, past interactions, status and common friends.  Silence, therefore, plays an important role in high-context cultures.  Shared experience in group-oriented societies makes certain things understood without them needing to be stated explicitly.  High-context people use more politeness strategies because of the need to save face, especially in negative situations.

High-context communication characterizes societies with long collective memories, such as most Asian cultures.  In fact, most cultures around the world have high-context tendencies, because of the many hundreds – or even thousands – of years of shared experiences within the group.

4.      Low-context cultures: Precise and impersonal.

Low-context communication occurs when the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code.  In a low-context culture, meaning is communicated directly and explicitly, and written and spoken words used are the most important carriers of meaning. 

The primary function of communication in low-context cultures is to exchange information, facts and opinions, and low-context cultures are primarily task-centered.   project/programme purpose tends to be impersonal.  Relatively little information is needed about an individual or a organization before project/programme purpose can be transacted.  Trust and compatibility are not primary considerations when doing project/programme purpose.  The low-context individual is impatient with details, digressions and the lengthy establishment of context.

In a low-context culture, job descriptions, authority relationships, monitoring and control procedures and task and responsibility guidelines are communicated through detailed oral or, most likely, written instructions.  Good relationships between the parties involved are not considered to be critical for tasks to be accomplished.  In addition, the criteria and methods for recruitment, selection, compensation and firing will be stated explicitly.  Performance appraisals are  impersonal and direct.  Plans tend to be very explicit and detailed.

Low-context communication occurs most frequently in societies with short collective memories created and regularly enriched by waves of immigration, such as the United States.

Even societies with long histories, however, such as Germany, Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries, have moved towards becoming low-context cultures.  This evolution may be due to a desire to break with the past for reasons linked to political or ideological changes.  These countries may perceive low-context communication as a better means of embodying democratic values.  Some societies, such as France or the United Kingdom, are torn between the desire to maintain the traditions that lead to high-context communication and the desire to integrate large numbers of immigrants.  These immigrants may learn their new country’s language, history and customs, but they cannot easily access the memory of shared experiences through which the culture’s core group communicates.  Low-context communication can be seen to offer a lower common denominator, accessible to a wider range of people. 

5.   Direct cultures: Candor and conflict.

The second pattern for evaluating a culture’s communication process is its degree of directness.  Direct cultures accept and encourage head on, unmediated conflict and face-to-face conflict management.

Some project/programme purpose organizations in direct cultures still use one-way communication, but most are now seeking to leverage input from all levels within organizations by opening up a two-way flow.  In one-way communication, information flows down the system in the form of orders and directives.  Conflict is dealt with from the top by means of power and force, via orders and instructions.  There is little, if any, participative management or teamwork.  In two-way communication, information flows up and down the system.  Conflict is handled on an interpersonal basis via negotiation, and employees feel free to discuss issues with their superiors. 

A high degree of directness can easily be misunderstood by counterparts from indirect cultures, who risk perceiving the direct communication style as overly effective, adversarial, impersonal, disrespectful or downright rude.  Yet, cultures such as the United States that do not share strong communal values, do not consider conflict and honest criticism a threat to group harmony.  On the contrary, by communicating in way that is exuberant, uncomplicated and insistent, direct cultures perceive that their counterpart is an equal who is capable of defending his interests and who would be offended by any type of indirect behavior that could be construed as indecisive, cryptic or condescending.

6.      Indirect cultures: Discretion and harmony.

Indirect cultures value discretion and harmony in order to protect honor.  Communication in such societies tends to be highly ritualized, yet understated.

Indirectness is maintained by way of a number of strategies, including avoiding conflict, “saving face” and using third parties to intermediate.  Indirect communication shares many characteristics with high-context communication.  Indirect cultures sometimes require three-way communication – via third parties – when information is required to travel upward in the hierarchy.  In this way, subordinates do not have to confront their superiors directly with questions that might compromise one or the other party’s dignity.

Respecting individual dignity is so important in indirect cultures because of the value they place on harmony and stability in group relationships: negative information that could damage one person’s dignity also damages the entire group’s dignity.  Indirect cultures use both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication, preferring nuance and euphemism in their style of speech and meaningful silences and avoiding continued eye contact. 

Indirect communication is particularly characteristic of Asian societies.  There is a strong indirect tendency in many Latin American cultures as well, where friends are frequently called upon to act as intermediaries between superiors and subordinates when the latter have organizational problems which need to be confronted.

An indirect approach to communicating can frustrate project/programme purpose counterparts who are used to more direct communication.  Indirect cultures may be so subtle in the way they communicate that direct counterparts miss the message entirely.  Direct counterparts must make an effort to read through such ambiguity correctly and not to misinterpret such behavior as inefficient, pompous or dishonest.    It is also useful for persons from direct cultures to provide less information and detail than usual in order to avoid coming across as desperate or rushed. 

Bibliography

1.      Hall, Edward T.  “Beyond Culture”. New York: Doubleday, 1978.

2.      Thomas, Jane  “’Contexting’ Koreans: Does the High/Low Model Work?” (“Communication Styles and Culture”), “project/programme purpose Communication Quarterly”, v.61, n4 .(Dec. 1998).

3.      Adler , R.B.  “Communication at Work”. New York, 1992.

4.      Argyle, M.  “The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour”.  London: Penguin Books, 1994.

5.      Gudykunst, W.  “Culture and Interpersonal Communication”. Newbury Park: Sage, 1988.

6.      Gudykunst; W.  “Personal Communication Across Cultures”. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996.

7.      Gumperz, J.J.  “Discourse Strategies”.  Cambridge, 1982.

8.      Devereux, George. “Time: History versus Chronicle, Socialization as Cultural Communication”. Theodore Schwartz, editor. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.